Institutions: Local Division
-
LD Düsseldorf, April 10, 2025, Decision on infringement, UPC_CFI_50/2024
Claim Interpretation of Product-by-Process Claims : Product-by-process claims should be interpreted based on the technical features imparted to the product by the process, not the process itself (Art. 69 EPC, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC). The court held that the key feature in this case was the ability to create a structural…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Lisbon, April 4, 2025, cost decision in PI proceedings, UPC_CFI_697/2024
Cost decision following an order rejecting a preliminary injunction: A decision on costs is possible following an order rejecting an application for a preliminary injunction (PI), although the strict wording of R. 150 et seq. RoP provide for a decision on costs only following a decision on the merits. Art. 69 (1-3) UPCA provides for…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, April 9, 2025, request to separate proceedings, UPC_CFI_819/2024
No separation of proceedings to avoid potential conflicts with EU competition law: Where several defendants belong to different competing groups of companies, potential conflicts with EU competition law may arise from the submission of sensitive confidential information about a company’s business in the proceedings. If these conflicts arise solely from the fact that the defendants…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 4, 2025, order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_750/2024
Questions of fact and law relevant to jurisdiction and to the merits of the case are not dealt with in the preliminary objection procedure according to R. 19.1 RoP: Questions of fact and law that are relevant both to jurisdiction of the UPCA and to the merits of the case are, in principle, not to…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, April 2, 2025, order on procedural security, UPC_CFI_429/2024
The mere allegation that enforcement of foreign judgments at Claimant’s seat in China has proven to be enormously difficult is not sufficient reason to order a procedural security pursuant to R. 158 RoP.: The fact that the Claimant has its registered office in a non-EU/non-EEA country, especially in the People’s Republic of China, cannot be…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 2, 2025, order on Preliminary Objection, UPC_CFI_819/2024
Multiple Defendants may be sued in one action provided that the infringement has occured in the CMS hosting the Local Division, irrespective of a “commercial relationship”: Claimant submitted in its Statement of claim sufficient facts, which establish competence of the Local Division Mannheim for each and every defendant under Art. 33(1)(a)UPCA, which is reinforced by…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, April 1, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_132/2024
UPC sets strict limitations on requests for filing further briefs: The UPC emphasizes procedural efficiency and limits deviations from the standard briefing schedule outlined in Rule 12 RoP. Requests for further briefs must be explicitly justified and supported by specific evidence, outlining the necessity for exceeding the standard two mandatory and two optional briefs. Request…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, April 1, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_499/2024
Re-establishment of rights rejected: Defendant did not show “due care” to meet the deadline to file their Statement of Defence (R. 320 RoP): The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare the Statement of Defence and failed to utilize available resources like the CMS team function or request an extension. Despite the Defendant’s illness, the Court…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, April 2, 2025, Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_18/2025
Opt-out withdrawals must clearly identify the patent but don’t require listing every state where it’s valid: The Court found that listing member states in the withdrawal solely in the context of identifying the proprietor was sufficient. Including states where the patent was granted (Art. 97(1) EPC) but not validated didn’t invalidate the withdrawal. Sufficient infringement…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, March 31, 2025, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_425/2024
Patent owners are not restricted in amending patents to counterclaims for revocation: The patentee may also request amendments to the patent that are not directly related to the grounds for invalidity arising from the counterclaim. The purpose of Rule 30 RoP is to give the patentee the opportunity to ‘save’ its patent in an amended…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, March 26, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_260/2025
Ex parte inspection order granted to preserve evidence at a trade fair: The Court granted an ex parte order for inspection and evidence preservation under Article 60 UPC and Rules 194, 196, 197, and 199 RoP. The Applicant successfully argued that the inspection was urgent due to the limited availability of the allegedly infringing products…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 21, 2025, procedural order on preliminary objection, UPC_CFI_702/2024
The UPC has jurisdiction to rule on alleged infringement of European patents in non-contracting states: Infringement actions can only be brought with respect to countries where the patent is in force, which includes not only countries where a Unitary Patent is in force but also validations of European patents in non-signatory countries. (Art. 24(4) Regulation…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, March 21, 2025, UPC_CFI_76/2024, order on withdrawal of complaint, UPC_CFI_76/2024
Cost reimbursement in case of withdrawal of infringement action and counterclaim for revocation : If the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation are withdrawn by the parties, 60% of the court fees can be reimbursed Division Local Division Düsseldorf UPC number UPC_CFI_76/2024 Type of proceedings Infringement action, counterclaim for revocation Parties Claimant: Hand Held…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 27, 2025, request for information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
Request to determine that information is not relevant to the decision is inadmissible: The Court found that an application to declare requested information is not relevant to the decision is inadmissible. The decisiveness of the requested information can only be determined after oral proceedings, assessment of the patent’s validity and the sufficiency of the arguments…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, March 21, 2025, order on application for provisional measures, UPC_CFI_582/2024
Rule 19.1(b) RoP does not apply to objections to provisional measures due to their expedited nature : The preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19.(b) RoP relates to proceedings on the merits. This is based on procedural economy and the (extended) timeframe within which theparties in infringement actions, revocation actions and actions for declaration of non-infringement…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, March 26, 2025, file inspection, UPC_CFI_210/2023
File inspection granted to a limited extent: The applicant’s request for file inspection (applicant: a partnership of lawyers under German law specializing in intellectual property law invoking a general interest in information in order to gain a better understanding and knowledge of proceedings before the UPC) is granted to a limited extent in accordance of…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 24, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_813/2024
Urgency of filing a request for evidence preservation: The applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim that its patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed. A period of two months (knowledge in October 2024; request in…
3 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.